I was discussing evolution on Faith Based with JGC awhile back. I was referring to Gould’s doubt about gradual changes and JGC attempted to defend Gould’s position by sighting the full text of the quote. It was no defense, but it does beg questions.

<link>

Gould Quote:

“"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.”

.

Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.

Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.

Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X.

.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist. Here in the 21st century when science has made remarkable discoveries unimaginable, they still cannot identify proof of how we evolved that the experts can agree upon.

Essentially, Gould disproves Dawkins claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for Gradual evolution. Or does Gould have no credibility? Dawkins disproves Gould’s claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium (i.e. monster steps). Or does Dawkins have no credibility?

The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould balks at the claims of gradual evolution yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact. And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould’s are counted as fools. How rich.

That's partially the reason that Economics is called "the dismal science." As an Economics major, I firmly believe that low taxes and little regulation spark booming activity and scientific innovation. I cannot prove it, though I am convinced.

Evolution is an unprovable theory. Just a theory. But a sound one. You can't posit a hypothesis and test it with an experiment. Well, you could, but that would be illegal and naughty.

I would think, however, that evolution would progress in erratic jumps rather than smooth escalation. Much like technical innovation.

I believe in God (though I can't prove it), and believe in evolution (though I can't prove it). The two don't seem antithetical. God plans ahead.

You would link us to one of CD's threads?!

In that spirit:

...JGC attempted to defend Gould’s position by sighting [sic] the full text of the quote....

(unless you think he was just looking at the text from a distance, I think you mean "citing.")

I believe in God (though I can't prove it), and believe in evolution (though I can't prove it). The two don't seem antithetical. God plans ahead.

They are not antithetical. Surely God could have brought all into existence via evolution, not saying that did not happen absolutely. I have my doubts for many reasons, however, but I do not want to debate that here as it has been done a hundred times. I was just curious that we have no evidence of how we evolved that the experts can agree on. I find that to be a glaring weakness. I think it should have been obvious by now.

What a shame I would make that error. I virtually never read CD's posts because of his bad disposition. But I did read this one obviously and I thought his argument must have been good about probabilities so... whatever, I screwed up.

And for the other correction, "citing." That was the word I had in there and my Word file noted it as misspelled. All the words they suggested were wrong so I figured I must be wrong and used sighting. Did I deserve that?

I appreciate the help.

Experts don't agree on molecular theory.

That doesn't make it bad science -- it is only evolving.

Science doesn't attempt to be a prophet. It is a straw-man argument to insist that it should.

No poopy stuff this time, I promise.

I guess I find your use of language kind of interesting. Last time out you found something "accurate" because you "agreed" with it. Wouldn't it be nice if everything we believed was true?

Gould doesn't "disprove" Dawkins by disagreeing with him. We reserve this kind of power for deities and nitwits.

But let's just go along for a second with the idea that you think they have "disproved" each other. Then they're both wrong, and their respective theories crumble to dust. (The other option, as you say, is that their disproving arguments are meaningless, but these are the same arguments that prop up their respective theories, so in this case the theories also bite the dust.)

Is that really what you think has happened? You've disproved evolution with your post here? Four paragraphs and you've wiped the whole thing out (if only people would listen)?

Funny, huh?

So a possibility I toy with: you want to believe, but don't know where to put all your baggage.

At no point did Gould (dead, by the way) or does Dawkins state there is no evidence for the other view of the speed at which evolution takes place. And it wouldn't make any difference if he did. The fossil record unequivocally supports evolutionary theory.

The two schools of thought (phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium) concern themselves with the speed at which evolution normally proceeds. Neither of them claims that it can't proceed in the other fashion under some circumstances.

The fossil record is imperfect; given the way that fossils are made, it has to be so. That is the sum total of what Gould was saying. His "admission" was that it is diffiucult to support either hypothesis of the speed of evolution with only the fossil record, because of its incompleteness. But that's all he was saying. Quote-mining Gould to support bad ideas is intellectually dishonest.

However, the point is moot. The fossil record is absolutely unnecessary to support evolutionary theory. In fact, the idea of evolution and much of current evolutionary theory (including On the Origin of Species) was formulated before much paleontological progress had been made. We have so many other lines of evidence for evolution that we would be absolutely confident of it, even if no fossil had ever been produced. Foremost among these lines is the homology of structure seen in living animals (also seen in extinct fossils, of course). Studies of DNA, mRNA, proteins, and other molecules independently confirm the evolutionary relationships we uncover with structural homology. Current and historical geographic distributions of animals and plants confirm evolutionary relationships. It's nice, but unnecessesary, to have fossils to use as yet another line of evidence for evolution.

I always wonder why Creationists insist scientists must all agree completely with each other yet fail to explain why there are hundred and hundreds of Christian sects and faiths.

What was the one question?

It seems like creationists and evolutionists have each set up camp on opposite sides of the same river. And both camps seem to share the ego-based assumption that existence implies that there's an overriding purpose- either towards god, or "progressing" towards an improved biomechanical state.

The fact that willful stupidity has survived as a heritable trait would seem to undermine both arguments.

Sorry, Urq, but you're wrong to say that you can't experimentally demonstrate evolution. It's been done in hundreds of labs all over the world, and in fact, is often demonstrated in undergraduate genetics labs. If you're referring to the production of new species, well, yeah, that's been done, too (Google "Raphanobrassica" for one example). If you demand that we get a reptile to give birth to a bird to confirm evolution, well, no, that hasn't been done yet. However, evolution has been made to run in reverse a few times (chicken embryos can be tweaked to make them have legs like Archaeopteryx--I mean the fossil bird ancestor, not me. I already have chicken legs).

I guess I find your use of language kind of interesting. Last time out you found something "accurate" because you "agreed" with it. Wouldn't it be nice if everything we believed was true?

The devil must be in the details. It’s a case by case world, Daveto.

Gould doesn't "disprove" Dawkins by disagreeing with him. We reserve this kind of power for deities and nitwits.

As far as I am concerned it’s your problem, not mine. I just find it amusing. Dawkins: “Based on our findings we evolved through gradual changes of natural selection.” Gould: “No we didn’t.”

But let's just go along for a second with the idea that you think they have "disproved" each other. Then they're both wrong, and their respective theories crumble to dust… Is that really what you think has happened? You've disproved evolution with your post here? Four paragraphs and you've wiped the whole thing out (if only people would listen)?

If you wish. I just noticed a significant leak in your damn and thought I would make mention of it. No need to panic.

So a possibility I toy with: you want to believe, but don't know where to put all your baggage.

Sounds cute, just not sure what it means?

.

I leave you with a quote from one my scientist heroes, Dr. David Berlinski, who just happens to be an agnostic as well.

The fundamental core of Darwinian doctrine, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has buoyantly affirmed, "is no longer in dispute among scientists." Such is the party line, useful on those occasions when biologists must present a single face to their public. But it was to the dead that Darwin pointed for confirmation of his theory; the fact that paleontology does not entirely support his doctrine has been a secret of long standing among paleontologists. "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

Small wonder, then, that when the spotlight of publicity is dimmed, evolutionary biologists evince a feral streak, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, and John Maynard Smith abusing one another roundly like wrestlers grappling in the dark.

Evolutionary scientists don't claim that evolution is "progress."

<link>

Glad to hear it, and it certainly has no conflict with, y'know, God and stuff. I was comparing it to Economics, as it's the long-term interaction of a bunch of things that don't always cooperate.

At least it's not based on a computer model.